In Obama's Thursday night speech he says,"We need to say as a country, I am my brother's keeper". Really?

In Thursdays "historic" speech, Barack Hussein Obama states that "We need to be our brother's keeper".

Oh really Obama?

Mr. Obama, if you REALLY believe that we should be our brother's keeper, then why are you letting YOUR BROTHER GEORGE IN KENYA, Africa, languish about earning 1$/day and living in a shack???

Huh? Mr. Obama?

That's right, while Barack Hussein Obama is the democratic nominee and according to 2007 records earned 4.2 million dollars, while his OWN BROTHER GEORGE HUSSEIN OBAMA is suffering back in Kenya (Obama's real place of birth).

The BIG question is: Why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama give ANY money to help his dirt poor OWN BROTHER??? I mean can't Barack throw his own brother a couple thousand a month seeing how Barack earned about $350,000 per MONTH last year.

I'll tell you why Barack Hussein Obama does not help his brother.

Because BARACK COULD CARE LESS about his OWN BROTHER in Kenya.

So tell me, all you Obama supporters, why in the world would Obama care AT ALL about helping you? I mean he doesn't even help financially support his own brother.

Do you really think he cares about what you are going through, like he claims?

Do you really think he cares about this country?

Remember, he does not even help out his own brother with even a few hundred dollars a month.

While the junior Illinois senator is plotting a course for the White House, his half brother lives in an African shanty.

"I live like a recluse," George Hussein Onyango Obama says in an article published in the latest edition of the Italian-language Vanity Fair. "No one knows I exist."

Charitable giving is another way you can tell how caring a person is.
Let us see who is more Caring or more Charitable.

In 2007, John McCain earned $405,000 and gave $105,000 to Charity, a whopping 26%.

In 2007, Barack Hussein Obama earned 4.2 million and gave a paltry $240,000 or 6% to Charity.

Shame on you once again Barack Hussein Obama.

Jimbo

Obama Voted Against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while in the IL. Senate

Summary and comment by NRLC (National Right to Life Committee) spokesman Douglas Johnson:

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth.

(The "neutrality" clause read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section.")

The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the IL State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 - even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

When Obama was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his Republican opponent criticized him for supporting "infanticide." Obama countered this charge by claiming that he had opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the pre-birth neutrality clause that had been added to the federal bill.

NRLC and other pro-life observers have always regarded Obama's "defense" as contrived, since the original two-paragraph BAIPA on its face applied only after a live birth; the "neutrality clause" added in 2001 merely made this explicit, and therefore the new clause did not change the substance of the original bill.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of liberal, pro-abortion members of the U.S. House of Representatives did not embrace the initial NARAL position that the original bill was an attack on Roe v. Wade. The Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, then as now, were a solidly liberal group, yet only one of them voted against the original BAIPA without the "neutrality clause," and he cited a different reason.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who supported the bill, and who described himself as "as pro-choice as anybody on Earth," argued that under his understanding of Roe "if an abortion is performed, or a natural birth occurred, at any age, [even] three months, and the product of that was living outside the mother, and somebody came and shot him, I don't think there's any doubt that person would be prosecuted for murder."

When the original bill - with no "neutrality clause" - came up on the House floor on September 26, 2000, it passed 380-15.

These facts should give pause to those who have unskeptically accepted Obama's claim that the IL BAIPA bills that he opposed in 2001 and 2002, which were modeled on the original federal BAIPA, were crafted to attack Roe v. Wade.

For the moment we can set that debate aside, however, for this reason: Documents obtained by NRLC now demonstrate conclusively that Obama's entire defense is based on a brazen factual misrepresentation.

The documents prove that in March 2003, state Senator Obama, then the chairman of the IL state Senate Health and Human Services Committee, presided over a committee meeting in which the "neutrality clause" (copied verbatim from the federal bill) was added to the state BAIPA, with Obama voting in support of adding the revision. Yet, immediately afterwards, Obama led the committee Democrats in voting against the amended bill, and it was killed, 6-4.

The bill that Chairman Obama killed, as amended, was virtually identical to the federal law; the only remaining differences were on minor points of bill-drafting style. To see the language of the two bills side by side, click here.

To see the official "Senate Committee Action Report" on this meeting, click on one of the links below. (The document is dated March 12, 2003, which is the day that the committee convened, but Chairman Obama recessed the meeting until March 13, which is the day that these votes actually occurred.)

Senate Committee Action Report in HTML (web browser) format
Senate Committee Action Report in JPG (photo) format
Senate Committee Action Report in PDF (Adobe document) format

In this report, the left-hand column shows the roll call vote on adoption of "Senate Amendment No. 1," which was verbatim the neutrality clause copied from the federal bill. The right hand column shows the roll call by which Obama and his Democratic colleagues then killed the amended bill - the bill that was virtually identical to the federal law that Obama, starting in 2004, claimed he would have supported if he'd had the opportunity.

To view the text of SB 1082 as it was originally introduced (without the neutrality clause), click here. To view the text of Senate Amendment No. 1 (the neutrality clause copied from the federal law), which Obama and his colleagues added to the bill at the March 13 meeting (before killing the bill), click here.

NRLC has also obtained two additional documents that report information on these events that is fully consistent with the Senate Committee Action Report.

To see the "Senate Republican Staff Analysis: Senate Bill No. 1082," click here. (If this Word document requests a password, simply hit "cancel" and it will be displayed.) The first portion of this analysis was written before the March 12-13, 2003, meeting of the committee that Senator Obama chaired. The committee's actions, amending the bill to exactly track the federal born-alive law, and then defeating the bill, are reported on the bottom half of the second page.)

Finally, to see an Associated Press dispatch dated March 13, 2003, reporting on the 6-4 committee vote that killed the bill, click here.

Less than two years after this meeting, Obama began to publicly claim that he opposed the state BAIPA because it lacked the "neutrality" clause, and that he would have supported the federal version (had he been a member of Congress) because it contained the "neutrality" clause.

His claim has been accepted on its face by various media outlets, producing stories that have in turn been quoted by the Obama campaign and Obama defenders in attacking anyone who asserts that Obama opposed born-alive legislation similar to the federal bill. It has also been forcefully repeated by advocacy groups such as NARAL (see, for example, this June 30, 2008 "alert" from NARAL).

It appears that as of August 7, 2008, only one writer - Terence Jeffrey, a contributing editor to HumanEvents.com - had correctly reported the essence of this story, in a column posted on January 16, 2008 (read it here), but his report was ignored by the Obama campaign and overlooked by others at the time.

Now, the uncovering of the Senate Committee Action Report and the contemporary Associated Press report shed new light on Senator Obama's four-year effort to cover up his real record of refusing to protect live-born survivors of abortion.

Jimbo

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A BIG FAT LIAR

I try not to sugar coat things on my blog.

It is true. Barack Hussein Obama is a Big Fat Liar.

He is trying to deny the Fact that he voted FOR INFANTICIDE while in the Illinois State Senate.

Back when Obama was in the IL. State Senate he was the ONLY Senator to vote Against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act", not once, not twice, but THREE times!

What is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?

It is Federal Law now.

It means that if a Baby is born "alive" during the course of an abortion, that basic medical care needs to be given that Born Alive Infant.

Barack Hussein Obama said that these Children don't even deserve Basic Medical Care! He believes that they should be thrown in a garbage can and die. And how would they die. From Starvation, Dehydration, which is a Horrible way to die. But Barack Hussein Obama doesn't care.
This is INFANTICIDE. Plain and Simple. And Barack Hussein Obama is FOR INFANTICIDE.

Now, Obama says, "Uh, Uum, I only voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, Uhm, well, Uhm, because it lacked good language".

Huh? What a load of CRAP.

Here is cartoon correctly portraying Obama and his feeling towards infants who are BORN ALIVE due to a botched abortion. This cartoon ran in the Chicago Sun-Times by Jack Higgins.

Here we have Barack Hussein Obama yelling at God telling him
that this infant born alive is none of His business.

This shows the insanity of this position Obama
has taken with pride.

Actually, A package of Born Alive bills was introduced three times during Obama's tenure.

The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of "live birth" created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955....

I will post links to Obama's actions and votes on the cornerstone bill, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.

2001

Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Go here to view Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2001.

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90

Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001

2002

Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Go here to view Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2002. (ABC inadvertently coped bill #1663, a companion bill. The vote for the Born Alive bill, #1662, was identical.)

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35

Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002

2003

Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. They sent Born Alive to the infamously liberal Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.

As can be seen on the Actions docket, Obama held Born Alive on March 6, 2003, from even being voted on in committee. It is also important to note from the docket that on March 13, 2003, Obama stopped the senate sponsor from adding the lately discussed clarification paragraph from the federal BAIPA, to make the bills absolutely identical.

Now Obama is trying to LIE about his record on this, to get those independent voters. He desperately wants those conservative democrats in States such as Missouri, Ohio, Minnesota, Virginia, Pennsylvania. He knows full well that if they find out the truth on this, many will not support him for President.

Yep, you'll know them by their fruits...

Obama's father and stepfather were both Muslim, and the pastor of his church is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

And we wonder why he "loves" American babies so much.

ugh....

Say NO to Barack Hussein Obama!

Jimbo

$$$-Today's College Cost. Is College Worth it?

I know some of you are screaming at this blog, YES YES YES, of course College is worth the cost.

But be honest, many of you went to college in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, when College was relatively inexpensive COMPARED TO TODAY.

Today, a 4 year Private School Bachelors Degree, including tuition and living on campus, is 100K-175K. That's right, $100,000!

In the past 5yrs. public Colleges have raised tuition 31% and private Colleges 14%. Last year alone Illinois raised tuition 12% and Colorado raised tuition rates 16%. This is WAY faster than both inflation and more importantly families salaries.

This is why if I were President, I would call for a moratorium on tuition hikes and overall College costs for the next 5 yrs. After that, I would cap the tuition costs at no more than the rate of inflation.

If we don't get a grip on these out of control College costs, soon only the RICH will be able to afford College. Do we really want that kind of society??

And what does that 100K degree get you in terms of starting salary? Between 40-60K.

My 4-year degree cost me about 10K. I graduated in 1994. My education was at a community College for 2 years and 2 years at a public 4-year College. Now going that way would cost 25K. Most of that 25K would be from the 4-year public College.

Plus, after decades of steady increases, the median salary for workers with a Bachelor's degree FELL 4.6% from 2001-2006. However, workers with Professional degrees (MBA, Masters, JD) salaries shot up 4.3% in the same period. This suggests the obvious. Save your money to get that MBA vs. the Bachelor's degree.

But the family that goes deep into debt to pay for their kid's 100K Bachelors degree, in my opinion, is making an investment that is not good.
It is one thing for the person who is getting the degree to go into debt to get that degree, but I think that responsibility should not be put on the parents. In otherwards, you want a college degree, YOU SHOULD PAY FOR IT.

Now I know many of you will disagree with me on this. Certainly, I am not against helping your kid out with College expenses, but not 100K help (unless you have unlimited funds that you want to blow).

What is so wrong with going to a Community College for the first 2 years to save BIG MONEY?

Who cares what the Jones say anyway.

Once finishing that 2 years at the Community College, then I would also recommend (if possible) living at home while attending the last 2 years at the 4-year College. This is a great way for the parents to help. Rent free living while in school will save big $$ vs. living "on campus".

My feeling is, get through College as cheap as possible, taking only the necessary courses to finish with your degree.

Obviously, I think you should take what you are interested in vs. what may only pay well, because doing what you want in a job is PRICELESS compared to being stuck in a job that you hate, only because it pays well.

Here's my reasons for thinking that a 4yr Bachelors degree (one that you are paying 100K for) is overpriced.

1. Search engines such as Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ) have ushered in the era of open-source learning. Society is rapidly progressing to the point where any Googler is on equal footing with a Widener Library pass-holder.
2. Most of today’s higher-paying jobs go to those who exhibit a combination of adaptable intelligence, numeracy, communications skills and a strong work ethic, as opposed to evidence of specific knowledge.

3. Which leads to a third, and no doubt controversial, point. Society once counted on universities to imbue students with the traits named in the paragraph above. It was once assumed, for instance, that a liberal arts degree holder was numerate and literate and knew how to draw lessons from history, weigh evidence, think, write, speak, debate and learn. Or so Larry Summers, the ex-Harvard president, innocently imagined. He thought undergrads should learn about the math-and-science-driven world they’d be entering as adults. This belief conflicted with the postmodern professoriat that prefers cutting rap records to teaching--or, if forced to teach, teaches liberation theology over the American Revolution. Summers lost the battle.

The same forces--technology and globalism--that quelled the wage growth of blue-collar workers may do the same to white-collar workers. Already software writers feel salary pressure from India, cartoon animators from China, classified ad salesmen from Ebay and so on. Despite this, you may conclude that my opinion of the worth of a college degree is nonsense. Degrees have always gone up in value, you think, and always will.

Okay. Allow me to pose a question. Suppose you are an employer and are filling jobs for which no credential is required. In other words, for typical white-collar jobs--product design and engineering, sales, marketing, non-CPA accounting work and so forth. Would you pay a steep salary premium for a four-year degree holder versus a high school grad? You might. Perhaps you’d think the four-year degree speaks to the job applicant’s intelligence, along with a certain facility to set goals and finish them.

But what if you could guarantee those qualities in other ways (military service, missionary work, etc.)? See, I think the Harvard or Yale degree is worth plenty, not because of what Harvard or Yale teaches--the postmodern university can do more harm than good; witness Yale’s admission of a former Taliban spokesman. The degree simply puts an official stamp on the fact that the student was intelligent, hardworking and competitive enough to get into Harvard or Yale in the first place. May I present to the jury Bill Gates? He was smart enough to get into Harvard. Then he proved his financial intelligence by dropping out to start a company.

Why does the price keep rising at these 4-yr. Colleges?

Well for one thing, dumb parents are lining up to hand over $$ checks to these schools.

Families seem to equate the higher price tags with a more quality education.

DUMB DUMB and DUMBER.

If Colleges were spending most of their money on initiatives that improve the quality of education for students, you might regard price hikes running at 2-4 times the rate of inflation as a necessary evil. But instead Colleges are spending their money on palatial dorms, state-of-the-art-fitness centers, hot tubs big enough for 15 people, and a panoply of gourmet dining options.

Now you are saying, "So that is where my 100K went"!

Like oceanfront property, degrees from Harvard/Yale will always command a premium and will probably pay out a terrific ROI. The same is true of degrees from 10 to 20 other private colleges. But beyond those 10 to 20 schools, I suspect the price of a four-year, private college degree--$100,000 to $175,000--will be money poorly invested.

Come on people, let's stop being scammed by these Colleges.

Jimbo

A Great Victory for California Homeschoolers! Homeschooling LEGAL!

That's right. The California Appeals court REVERSED its Feb. decision, making homeschooling in California a LEGAL RIGHT.

In a unanimous decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District today ruled that “California statutes permit home schooling as a species of private school education.”
Today’s decision stands in stark contrast to the opinion this same three-judge panel issued in February, which would have made California the only state in the union to outlaw home education had it remained in effect.

“It is unusual for an appellate court to grant a petition for rehearing as this court did in March,” said HSLDA Chairman Mike Farris, “but it is truly remarkable for a court to completely reverse its own earlier opinion. We thank you for your prayers and give God the glory for this great victory.”

California’s three largest homeschool organizations, California Homeschool Network, Homeschool Association of California and Christian Home Education Association joined together in one brief to defend the right of all parents to homeschool. HSLDA, Family Protection Ministries and Focus on the Family also joined in a separate brief. Numerous other private organizations came to the defense of home education as did California’s governor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction.

The United States Supreme Court has held that parents possess a constitutional right to direct the education of their children.
Therefore, I would argue that any restriction on home schooling is a violation of this constitutional right.

So homeschoolers, be happy about this decision, but NEVER stop fighting the forces out there that are against homeschoolers.

Jimbo

Obama's Grand Energy Policy---INFLATE YOUR TIRES

That's right, Obama said last week that "If we inflate our tires, that would help bring down gas prices just as much as drilling for new oil". "Just inflate your tires and get a tune up". This is Obama's grand energy policy.

I have an idea. If Obama becomes President, he can form the Dept. of Tire inflation and John Edwards can be the Secretary of Tire Inflation. Edwards is uniquely qualified because of his "Inflated" ego.

This kind of childish response to solving our energy crisis shows how UNQUALIFIED Obama is.

We need to begin drilling for Oil in all 50 states and off our coast + build new refineries everywhere. Not to mention, build new coal and nuclear plants everywhere.

Think of all the good paying jobs that would be created if we implemented massive new drilling, refining, and coal and nuclear power plants.

But remember, Obama says "all we need to do is inflate our tires".
Sounds like Obama's ego is inflated to me. What a complete idiot.
McCain needs to jump on this with ads playing over and over and over again about inflating your tires as Obama's way to solve the energy crisis.

The question is: will McCain run these ads or chicken out. Will McCain end up in the Bob Dole heap (a big loser to Clinton in 1996).

Remember, it is Obama, Gore, and his cohorts that BLOCK new refineries and new oil drilling.
It is Obama, Gore, and his Environmental cohorts that are RESPONSIBLE for $4.00/gal. gas.

So run out there and INFLATE your tires to bring down gas prices. HA HA HA.

Jimbo